JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/sole accused in Sessions Case No.48 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Special Judge’). Vide the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2016 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellant herein/sole accused was found guilty of the charges under Section 376 (1) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, accordingly he was convicted of the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) IPC and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is resident of Gandlapalle ST Colony village, Irala Mandal. The victim girl P.W.1 is daughter of L.W.10-Yanadhi Jyothi and one Perumalaiah. Husband of L.W.10-Jyothi discarded her husband and died. Later, she married L.W.11-Gajendra and they were blessed with a daughter and a son. About 15 days prior to the incident, L.Ws.8 and 9-parents of L.W.10-Jyothi took P.W.1 to Damalacheruvu Santhagate, Pakala mandal, and two days prior to 10.07.2015, they went to Talakona of Yerravaripalem mandal for labour work to cut mangoes, leaving P.W.1 with P.W.3. On the fateful day, the accused also attended labour work at mango garden of Damalacheruvu Saheb and returned Mango Nagar at about 7.30 PM, had liquor in Mango Nagar, purchased another nip and started proceeding towards Santhagate on foot. At about 8.00 PM, he reached Santhagate and found P.W.1 playing with other children. On seeking her, he had sexual feelings and induced her that her mother was calling her. Believing his words, P.W.1 boarded auto of P.W.5 along with the accused, who took her to High School gate, Damalacheruvu, alighted auto, paid amount to P.W.5 towards fare, purchased one biscuit packet in sundry shop and gave it to P.W.1, and proceeded towards Chittoor road side, on foot, catching hold of hand of P.W.1. Believing his words, P.W.1 boarded auto of P.W.5 along with the accused, who took her to High School gate, Damalacheruvu, alighted auto, paid amount to P.W.5 towards fare, purchased one biscuit packet in sundry shop and gave it to P.W.1, and proceeded towards Chittoor road side, on foot, catching hold of hand of P.W.1. After crossing the check post, the accused took her into Koneticheruru tank, got her consume liquor, and when she was under intoxication of alcohol, he lifted her to his waist, went into middle of the tank, laid her down, lifted her frock, removed his clothes and had forcible sexual intercourse lying on her. When P.W.1 raised hue and dry, he gagged her mouth and committed penetrative sexual assault. In the midnight, the accused dropped her at Santha gate and went away. On 11.07.2015 at 10.00 AM, P.Ws.2 and 3 and another noticed legs of P.W.1 stained with blood. They woke up P.W.1 and questioned her. She revealed about the incident. Mean while, the accused came to Santhagate to take his bag kept Santhagate to go to coconut garden of Chengaiah of Gundlapalle ST Colony to harvest coconuts, and on that, he was caught and tied to bottom of a mango tree. On information, P.W.4-staff nurse of PHC, Damalacheruvu visited the spot, examined P.W.1 and ascertained penetrative sexual assault on P.W.1 and requested the villagers, who gathered there, to inform police and also 108 Ambulance to take the victim to Government Hospital for treatment. On the strength of statement of P.W.1, a case in crime No.63 of 2015 of Pakala police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (1) IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. P.W.13-Inspector of Police examined P.W.1 in the presence of WHC 2050 S.A.Karimunnisa and recorded her statement under Section 161 CrPC, seized wearing apparel of the victim under cover of police proceedings, forwarded the victim to the District Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor for examination. P.W.13-Inspector of Police examined P.W.1 in the presence of WHC 2050 S.A.Karimunnisa and recorded her statement under Section 161 CrPC, seized wearing apparel of the victim under cover of police proceedings, forwarded the victim to the District Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor for examination. He visited the scene of offence, arrested the accused, recorded his confession and pursuant to the same, he visited scene of offence, seized one shirt and a cell phone belonging to the accused under cover of scene observation mahazar-cum-seizure mahazar on 11.07.2015 in the presence of mediators, drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined and recorded statements of witnesses, seized wearing apparels and cotton sanitary gauze pad of the victim preserved by P.W.8-Medical Officer under police proceedings. P.W.8-Medical Officer preserved wearing apparels, vaginal swab, vaginal smear, public hair and finger nails of P.W.1 and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis and forwarded the victim to P.W.7-Assistant Professor, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati for examination and determination of age. P.W.7 examined the victim and issued a certificate opining that the victim was aged about 7 – 9 years. P.W.10 examined the accused and issued a certificate stating that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act. On receipt of chemical analysis report, P.W.8 gave final opinion that there are signs of sexual intercourse and age of the victim is about 7-9 years. P.W.12-Magistrate recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC and conducted test identification parade. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The accused was furnished with copies of documents. Charges for the offences under Sections 376 (1) IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against him, and when the same were read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and M.Os.1 to 10. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same. D.W.1-wife of the accused was examined on his behalf and Exs.D1 to D4 were got marked. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same. D.W.1-wife of the accused was examined on his behalf and Exs.D1 to D4 were got marked. After hearing both sides, the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, as stated supra. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/accused submits that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and except the interested testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence available to incriminate the accused; that there were disputes between the family of victim and the accused and so, a false case is foisted against the accused. He further submits that there are several inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses, and hence, no reliance can be placed on it for convicting the accused. It is his submission that the ocular testimony is not corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused. 6. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor for State contends that the evidence of P.W.1, who is victim, is consistent, and her evidence, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 6, would clinchingly establish that it is the accused and none else, who committed the offence alleged, and there is corroborative evidence of P.W.5-auto driver who took the accused and the victim to High School gate, Damacheruvu. He further submits that the ocular testimony is supported by medical evidence, P.Ws.7 and 8 and Exs.P2 to P4, and there is no grouse or enmity for P.W.1 to implicate the accused falsely in a case of this nature, and the learned Special Judge, on examination of the evidence on record, rightly found the accused guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced him and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt and whether the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Special Judge are sustainable or not? 8. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt and whether the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Special Judge are sustainable or not? 8. The allegation is that on 10.07.2015 at about 7.30 PM at Koneticheruvu tank, near Damalacheruvu village, Santhagate check post of Pakala mandal, the accused consumed liquor to P.W.1, a minor girl aged 7 years, and when she fell under intoxication, he lifted her into middle of the tank and after removing her frock and clothes forcibly, he had sexual intercourse with her, and he committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor girl. 9. Coming to the evidence, P.W.1 is the victim minor girl. The learned Special Judge put some preliminary questions to her in order to ascertain whether she is capable of understanding the questions and giving rationale answers, and after satisfying with her answers, recorded her evidence in Telugu. 10. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that she knows the accused. P.W.1 identified the accused who is present in the Court hall. About 8 months back, she came to her grandmother’s house in Mamidi Thota of Damalacheruvu village. While she was playing in darkness , the accused took her stating that her mother was calling her, gave biscuit, took to brandy shop, bought liquor and took her to tank . When the learned Sessions Judge put specific questions, P.W.1 stated that the accused removed her clothes, he removed his clothes, consumed brandy and also got her drunk, he laid on her, and on that, the victim got pain at her urinal organ and cried, and on that, the accused beat her, pinched and bit her on right cheek. She deposed that thereafter, he left her in Damalacheruvu near the place where the cows were being injected, and on the next day, the villagers tied the accused and beat him. She further deposed that she stated about the incident to her grandmother and to the police, and she was sent to hospital. 11. During cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony with regard to the incident proper i.e. committing of rape on her by the accused. She deposed in crossexamination that while the accused was committing the rape, no person witnessed. 12. 11. During cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony with regard to the incident proper i.e. committing of rape on her by the accused. She deposed in crossexamination that while the accused was committing the rape, no person witnessed. 12. P.W.9 was working as a Constable, Kallur Police Station at the time of the incident. On 11.07.2015, on the instructions of P.W.13- Circle Inspector of Police, she examined the victim girl, P.W.1 and reduced her statement into writing, which is marked as Ex.P1. She deposed that she read over the contents of the statement to P.W.1, who admitted the same as true and correct and affixed her right thumb impression. The recitals in Ex.P1-report corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Basing on Ex.P1 report, P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2015 of Pakala Police Station under Ex.P12-FIR. 13. P.W.5 is the driver of the auto, in which the accused took the victim girl, P.W.1 to the place of offence. According to his evidence, on 10.07.2015 at about 7.00 PM, when he reached Panhayat Office, Damacheruvu, the accused along with one girl, aged 7 years, boarded his auto and alighted at High School gate, Damacheruvu and the accused paid him Rs.10/- fare. He further deposed that on 11.07.2015 at about 10.00 AM, when he reached Santhagate, near Panchayat Office, Damacheruvu, he saw crowd near mango tree and observed that the accused was tied to a mango tree and the victim, who was in the company of the accused on the previous night, was lying under the tree with bleeding near her private parts. He deposed that P.W.1 informed him that the accused took her towards Cheruvu and committed rape on her. Nothing has been elicited in his crossexamination to discredit his testimony. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 can be used as a circumstantial evidence to the effect that the accused took the victim girl, P.W.1 on the fateful day, up to High School gate. 14. P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 is her younger sister’s granddaughter. She knows the accused, who is resident of Gundlapalle. During the last mango season, her younger sister left P.W.1 with her and went for coolie work of harvesting mangoes. On one day evening, during harvest season of mangoes in the previous year, P.W.1 was playing near Santhagate and thereafter, she found P.W.1 missing and did not return during that night. She knows the accused, who is resident of Gundlapalle. During the last mango season, her younger sister left P.W.1 with her and went for coolie work of harvesting mangoes. On one day evening, during harvest season of mangoes in the previous year, P.W.1 was playing near Santhagate and thereafter, she found P.W.1 missing and did not return during that night. On the next day morning, she saw P.W.1 lying by the side of her. P.W.1 was in unconscious state. She woke up and gave buttermilk to P.W.1. She saw bleeding near the thighs of P.W.1, and on her enquiry P.W.1 informed her that accused took her with him, gave a drink, took her to Cheruvu and committed rape on her. In cross-examination, it is elicited that P.W.3 came to know that P.W.1 was raped about 8.00 PM and that she does not know when P.W.1 returned to the place where she was sleeping. 15. P.W.2 was working as an electrician in Panchayat Office, Damalacheruvu. He deposed that he knows the accused. On 11.07.2015 at 11.00 AM, he saw P.W.1 and her grandmother near mango tree, adjacent to the office. He noticed cries of P.W.1 and rushed towards her. He observed bleeding near private parts of P.W.1, on enquiry P.W.1 informed him that accused took her to a tank, gave a drink in thumbs up bottle, removed her dress, he removed his dress, laid on her and when she raised cries, the accused closed her mouth and committed rape on her. During crossexamination, though certain minor contradictions were elicited, the same would not go to the root of the case. The evidence of P.W.2 is consistent with regard to observing the victim girl, P.W.1 near a mango tree, where crowd gathered. 16. P.W.4, who was working as Asha Worker in Damalacheruvu, deposed that on 11.07.2015 between 10.15 AM and 10.30 AM, when she was in Primary Health Centre, she got a phone call from another Asha Worker by name Dhanalakshmi stating that a girl was suffering from bleeding and unconscious. Then, she went to Santhagate, observed that the accused was tied to a mango tree and he was beaten by public. She observed bleeding near private parts of P.W.1. She enquired P.W.1, who narrated the incident to her. Meanwhile, 108 ambulance came to Santhagate. They changed the dress of P.W.1 in the ambulance and P.W.1 was taken to hospital. 17. Then, she went to Santhagate, observed that the accused was tied to a mango tree and he was beaten by public. She observed bleeding near private parts of P.W.1. She enquired P.W.1, who narrated the incident to her. Meanwhile, 108 ambulance came to Santhagate. They changed the dress of P.W.1 in the ambulance and P.W.1 was taken to hospital. 17. P.W.6, who was working as Sweeper in Panchayat Office, Damalacheruvu, also deposed that on 11.07.2015 at 10.00 AM, he saw a crowd near Panchayat Office and noticed the victim girl under a mango tree. He also observed bleeding near the legs of P.W.1. On enquiry he came to know about the incident. In cross-examination it is elicited that P.W.6 heard when the victim was narrating the incident to others. 18. P.W.11 acted as one of the mediators to the arrest of the accused, the confession made by the accused, seizure of material objects pursuant to the confession of the accused. 19. P.W.13 worked as Circle Inspector of Police, who was Incharge of Pakala Police Station. His evidence is to the effect that he instructed P.W.9-Woman Constable to record the statement of the victim and pursuant to the same, he registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2015 of Pakala Police Station under Ex.P12-FIR. He recorded the statement of the victim in civil dress in the presence of Woman Head- Constable and seized wearing dress of the victim under cover of Ex.P13. He sent the victim girl to medical examination by accompanying Woman Constables. He visited the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P7-scene observation report and got prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P14. He arrested the accused and got remanded him to judicial custody. He seized the material objects and sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. He sent the accused for medical examination. Ex.P16 is the FSL Report. He got recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 161 CrPC. After receipt of documents and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 20. Coming to medical evidence, P.W.7 worked as Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, SV Medical College, Tirupati. He examined the victim girl, P.W.1 and issued Ex.P2-age certificate, opining that she was aged about 7 to 9 years. After receipt of documents and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 20. Coming to medical evidence, P.W.7 worked as Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, SV Medical College, Tirupati. He examined the victim girl, P.W.1 and issued Ex.P2-age certificate, opining that she was aged about 7 to 9 years. So, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 and the recitals in Ex.P2, it can be concluded that victim girl was a minor as on the date of the incident. 21. P.W.8 worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor. On 11.07.2015 at 7.40 PM, she examined P.W.1 victim girl and on external examination, she found the following injuries: 1. Multiple scratch marks on both cheeks; 2. Multiple abrasion on the back (both scapular regions, loin region); 3. External genitalia; 4. Lower part of labia majora swollen; 5. Urethral and Clitoris congested and minimal bleeding present, fourchette tear present. Hymen absent. 6. Foul smelling discharge present. Vaginal bleeding present. 7. Vaginal introits admitting one finger (little) 22. P.W.8 deposed that as per Ex.P-3/FSL Report, the Assistant Director, APFSL opined that human semen and spermatozoa are detected in item Nos.2 to 5 and 10. After receipt of FSL Report under Ex.P3, she issued Final Opinion-Ex.P4 that there are signs of sexual intercourse and age of the victim is about 7 to 9 years. The evidence of P.W.8 remains unchallenged. 23. P.W.10 worked as Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, SV Medical College. According to his evidence, he examined the accused and issued Ex.P5–Certificate of Potency, opining that there is nothing to suggest that the individual is not capable of performing sexual act. 24. The evidence of P.W.1-victim girl is cogent and convincing with regard to the alleged act of rape committed by the accused. It is her categorical evidence that while she was playing in darkness, the accused took her to Koneticheruvu tank on the pretext that her mother was calling, consumed alcohol and also got her drunk and committed sexual assault. Admittedly, there is no grouse or enmity for P.W.1 against the accused to implicate him falsely in a case of this nature. Though certain minor contradictions were elicited in her cross-examination, the same will not go to the root of the case and do not affect the main substratum of the prosecution case. Admittedly, there is no grouse or enmity for P.W.1 against the accused to implicate him falsely in a case of this nature. Though certain minor contradictions were elicited in her cross-examination, the same will not go to the root of the case and do not affect the main substratum of the prosecution case. On that ground, the consistent version of P.W.1 with regard to the alleged incident cannot be discarded. It is her evidence that incident occurred at a lonely place during night hours, at Koneticheruvu tank near Damalacheruvu village. So, it is not expected that there would be eyewitnesses to the incident. Admittedly, the victim knows the accused and there would be no difficulty for her to identify the accused. In fact, P.W.12-Magistrate conducted test identification parade on 24.8.2015 in the District Jail, Chittoor and the proceedings are marked as Ex.P11, wherein P.W.1 identified the accused as assailant. On the same day, P.W.12-recorded statement of P.W.1 under Section 164 CrPC under Ex.P9. The recitals in Ex.P9 statement also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. 25. From the evidence of P.W.5-driver of the auto, it is clear that the accused took the victim girl to the place of offence. From the evidence of P.W.3 it is clear that after the incident, the victim girl- P.W.1, who was under intoxicated state, was lying by the side of P.W.3, who is elder sister of grandmother of P.W.1 and she found bleeding near the thighs of P.W.1-victim girl, who, on enquiry stated to P.W.3 about the incident. After the ghastly incident, when blood was oozing from the private part of P.W.1, and when she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault, she would be in a condition of shock. From the evidence of P.W.4, Asha Worker, it is clear that on the next day of the incident i.e. 11.07.2015 between 10.15 AM and 10.30 AM, she observed bleeding near private part of P.W.1 and P.W.4 advised to take her to hospital. P.W.2, who was worked as an electrician in Panchayat Office and P.W.6, a Sweeper in Panchayat Office, also noticed the victim girl under a mango tree near Panchayat Office and also bleeding near her private parts. The medical evidence of P.W.8 and the recitals of Exs.P3 and 4 also supports the ocular testimony. 26. P.W.2, who was worked as an electrician in Panchayat Office and P.W.6, a Sweeper in Panchayat Office, also noticed the victim girl under a mango tree near Panchayat Office and also bleeding near her private parts. The medical evidence of P.W.8 and the recitals of Exs.P3 and 4 also supports the ocular testimony. 26. Further more, P.W.1 specifically deposed in her evidence that the accused pinched and bit on her right cheek and committed rape on her. P.W.8-Doctor observed multiple scratch marks on both cheeks and also swelling on lower part of labia majora and also found minimal bleeding and fourchette tear present, and according to her, foul smelling discharge and vaginal bleeding were present. Therefore, there is corroboration between medical evidence and ocular testimony. From the evidence of P.W.7 and recitals in Ex.P2, it is established that age of the victim girl-P.W.1 is about 7 to 9 years by the date of the incident. The defence theory that in view of the family disputes between the accused and family of P.W.1, the accused is falsely implicated in the present case, is not acceptable. 27. The learned Special Judge, on proper appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly found the appellant herein/accused guilty of the offences and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him of the charges levelled against him, which warrants no interference by this Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment, dated 27.06.2016 in Sessions Case No.48 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.